The reason for secession and war (slavery) isn't necessarily the same as the reasons why individual soldiers fought. But the war was about slavery. The reasons why soldiers fought ranged from preserving slavery and that way of life to wanting to fight for one's homeland. As I understand it, at the time of the war, people identified much more as citizens of their states than as citizens of the US. That doesn't mean that there's any complexity to what the war was about.

This was put out by the official printer for the SC secession congress sometime in late 1860/early 1861 and makes a very interesting read.

One of the really fascinating things (in an unnerving way) is that the author clearly doesn't mean "acquired by the common blood and common treasure of all" or "the common ancestors of all, both North and South" to include the slaves, who contributed rather more than their share of the blood and certainly the treasure of their labor.

It reminds me of a letter in an old farming magazine from shortly after WWII which I have somewhere around the house, referring to what had apparently been a discussion in the previous issue of the fact that black soldiers returned from the war were agitating for better access to the vote. The letter writer said, in I think these words though I don't have the magazine handy to check, that such matters should be left to the people of the states in question. It didn't appear to have occurred to him that the problem was exactly that many of the people of the states in question were being excluded from the decision: to the letter writer "the people" were clearly just the white ones.

The problem is that "States' Rights" is an argument that's almost exclusively only used when the person does not have a scientific, social, or other valid argument for why something should be decided by the state

Quote:

Originally Posted by erwins

It may be that the highest profile uses of states' rights arguments are also unscientific or lack logical support, but as I mentioned iin another thread where mouse made the same sweeping statement, the argument itself is used by people all over the political spectrum, and often for very good reasons.

The issue is somewhere in between. The critical difference is that "states' rights" is not an argument all by itself. Someone using that argument generally has a specific right or rights they feel belong to the state. In the case of euthanasia, Oregon feels that the right to determine how a person may die is a right of the state. The South was fighting for the rights of states. Foremost of these rights was the right to own slaves and the right to compel Northern states to return escaped slaves.

So the issue is not whether someone is claiming "states' rights" as their argument, but what specific right they are fighting for. Southern apologists are trying to pretend that "states' rights" was an end unto itself or that the right to own slaves was well down an innumerable list of rights.

ETA: Also ignored is the blood of the Native Americans who treasure was the new territories.

I don't think the issue is in between. I think you just restated what I said, but regardless, I agree with you.

(Except that Oregon was literally arguing about the regulation of the practice of medicine as being within the states' purview, not about determining how a person dies. The issue in the case was literally whether a physician prescribing drugs that would end someone's life was engaging in a legitimate medical practice.)

I will say that while I think there is merit in running a country of this size with using a federal system, I don't think it's the only right way, or that there couldn't be a better way, but it is the system we have. I think some of the people who tout states' rights the loudest are also big American exceptionalists and people who believe that states' rights are god-given, etc. (Of course only the ones they like). It makes a bit of difference in the discourse.

I know very little about the American Cival War so I won't make any reasons for the real reasons for it but on reading through this supposed history a few things came to mind

Quote:

Originally Posted by snopes

Grant stated “Good help is so hard to come by these days.”

This sounds like it comes from a joke. You usually say it tongue in cheek when a mate screws up a simple task. Maybe it was a joke and someone took it seriously

Quote:

Originally Posted by snopes

BUT, even more monumental, it is also very important to know

FACT – A very interesting fact on slavery is that at the time the War

Now these phrases, when used in an argument, set off my BS metre. I imagine them said by someone, usually the father of a friend, we all know someone like this, they don't go by much by "book learning" they went to the "University of Life" and they therefore know more then "those academics". They don't offer any prove of their knownledge they just "know" it is true or their old Dad told them or some other folksy prove of their fact.

Quote:

Originally Posted by snopes

MYTH – The Confederate Battle Flag is known as the “Stars & Bars”.

FACT – A common misconception. The First National Confederate Flag is
correctly known as the “Stars & Bars”. The Confederate Battle Flag is
known as the [B] “Southern Cross”.[B]

That not the Southern Cross. the Southern Cross is on the Australian and New Zealand flags and is, well the Southern Cross. Don't steal the name of our cross.

Quote:

Originally Posted by snopes

FACT – This is a blatant attack on one of the finest heritage groups
ever.

The finest heritage groups every hey? What in the whole world? In all of history? US exceptionism much. Actually you sound like a child.

The reason for secession and war (slavery) isn't necessarily the same as the reasons why individual soldiers fought. But the war was about slavery.

Remember the slogan from the 60's; "What if they gave a war and nobody showed up?"

Wars are always largely about what the guy carrying the pointy stick thinks they are about. Sometimes the gov't can trick them into thinking something that is wrong but generally that doesn't last very long (see Vietnam War). I suspect that the dirt-poor southerners that made up their army didn't give a rat's ass about slavery. What they did care about was that it was their state's decision and not the federal governments. That's where the states right argument comes from and it is damn hard to argue that that viewpoint is without merit. Indeed the proof of merit is that several hundred thousand southerners were willing to die to protect the sovereignty of their state.

Governments make mistakes all the time, and they do evil things all the time. To say that the federal gov't was good and the secessionist bad is really only true for one of the many issues that were important at the time. Slavery really didn't become "the reason" until well into the war and even then the guys with guns in blue and grey really didn't care about that issue.

The war clearly ended slavery and that is certainly the major lasting effect of the war. But few people in the North were willing to go to war just over the issue of slavery. The North had tolerated slavery in the South for many years and could have gone on doing so.

The causes of war aren't a popularity contest. It doesn't matter what the general belief is, what matters is the reasons of the leaders who start the war. The general belief is just a means to get the population behind the war that the leaders want for the real reasons.

The second Gulf War was not about WMD just because a large number of people thought it was. It was about conquest/oil/money/showing up Daddy.

The causes of war aren't a popularity contest. It doesn't matter what the general belief is, what matters is the reasons of the leaders who start the war. The general belief is just a means to get the population behind the war that the leaders want for the real reasons.

The second Gulf War was not about WMD just because a large number of people thought it was. It was about conquest/oil/money/showing up Daddy.

That is relevant only to the extent the the Second Gulf War has any relationship to the Civil War. Of hand I would put that relationship at basically zero. The Gulf Wars had no impact on the lives of average Americans, heck taxes weren't even raised. The Civil War had a huge effect on everyone, roughly ten times more soldiers died at Gettysburg alone than all of GW2.

Wars are always largely about what the guy carrying the pointy stick thinks they are about.

That isn't about the relationship between wars. That is a sweeping statement about all wars.

I disagree that wars are about what the soldiers think it's about. I think that it's important to consider both, and to make the distinction. The war began over slavery. Period.

The soldiers fought for a variety of reasons, some of which included slavery. In fact, according to a book on the subject, most Southern soldiers' reasons for fighting included the right to own slaves, white supremacy, and to preserve their way of life. (From this book: http://www.amazon.com/Holt-McDougal-.../dp/0385476345). Most Northerners were about equally racist, by the way, but by the end of the war they tended to realize that slavery had to end.

I live in Mississippi, and we're still debating whether or not to change our state flag. It currently has a replica of the battle flag in the upper left corner.

In your article, you did a great job in correcting the misinformation that was put out in the article “Truth about Confederate History.” But, it might be of interest to you that someone from my area cut this paragraph from your article and claimed that these were the words from Snopes:

MYTH: The Confederate Battle Flag represents racism today.

FACT: The Confederate Battle Flag today finds itself in the center of much controversy and hoopla going on in several states. The cry to take this flag down is unjustified. It is very important to keep in mind that the Confederate Battle Flag was simply just that. A battle flag. It was never even a National flag, so how could it have flown over a slave nation or represented slavery or racism? This myth is continued by lack of education and ignorance. Those that vilify the Confederate Battle Flag are very confused about history and have jumped upon a bandwagon with loose wheels.

He said it was Snopes who said taking down the flag was unjustified!

He never mentioned that the paragraph came from the article you were discussing. Thank goodness I read your article myself!